Mac Pro Mid-2010 Westmere

Some highlights from reviews:
Single threaded performance for Westmere is almost identical to Nehalem. However, multi-threaded performance increases by 20-42% for the extra 2 cores. Westmere is a solid improvement for multithreaded workloads at the same power level as the previous generation. Realworldtech: Westmere Performance and Westmere Arrives


*Intel Core i7-980X 6-Core CPU*
by Olin Coles
http://benchmarkreviews.com

*Intel HD Boost*
full SSE4 instruction set, improves multimedia and compute-intensive applications.
128-bit SSE instructions one per clock cycle, SSE4-optimized applications.
Gulftown supports existing Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 (SSE2), Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSE3) and Streaming SIMD Extensions 4 (SSE4).

Transcoding
Core i7-920 (2.66) 15129 point baseline
Gulftown Core i7-980X 29% performance

*File compression* CPU Zip library tests, improves archiving process by nearly 81% compared to quad core 2.66 with eight threads.

*AES Encryption* test boosts performance 1945%
With 2 cores disabled, the 980X outperformed the i7-920 by 1572%

Cinebench CPU mult-threaded test
Core i7-920 2.66GHz score 4.29
i7-980X Extreme 3.33GHz Gulftown score 7.95
theoretical score 6.44
- six cores operating at 2.66GHz

Based on the benchmarks of professional productivity application,s performance for engineering and design of about 13%

PCMark Vantage +TV and Movies benchmark+, Gulftown outperforms the i7-920 by nearly 15%

*Queen and Photoworxx* are synthetic benchmarks that operate the function many times over and over-exaggerate by several magnitudes what the real-world performance would be like.
The Queen benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and misprediction penalties of the CPU. It does this by finding possible solutions to the classic queen problem on a chessboard.
At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores.
*Gulftown shows a 136% increase in raw processing power.*

*CPU PhotoWorxx*
Gulftown 6-Core past 4-core i7-920 by 39%

+Gulftown didn't create any conspicuous benefits to *video game performance*, it didn't harm frame rate, either.+

Westmere microarchitecture reduces power drain down to only 12W at idle.

Mac Pro 8800GT 10.6.4 /, Windows 7, Core i7 3.2GHz / GTX 260 / 10K VelociRaptors

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 6:15 AM

Reply
22 replies

Aug 10, 2010 1:25 PM in response to The hatter

So if you wanted 24GB this is what you would face:
Go for 6-core you want, or settle for slower system?
pay 2x for RAM or buy slower processor or put money into SSD and hope you don't need more than 16GB or that prices drop.

*$3500 for 8-core @ base 2.4GHz, 900MHz slower*
*$3700 for 6-core 3.33GHz*

*Memory Upgrade for the Apple Mac Pro 6-Core Mid 2010*
Crucial CT1431612

Maximum Memory: 32768MB
Slots: 4 (4 banks of 1)

16GB kit (8GBx2), 240-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-10600 memory module
CT1431612
Module Size: 16GB kit (8GBx2)
Package: 240-pin DIMM
Feature: DDR3 PC3-10600
Specs: DDR3 PC3-10600 • CL=9 • Dual Ranked • Registered
• ECC • DDR3-1333 • 1.5V • 1024Meg x 72 •

$1099099 for a pair or $550 each ($380 from OWC for 2009 models)

24GB
3 x 8GB $1650 (OWC - "To be announced")
6 x 4GB $1140 (OWC $1049)

*12GB - 6 x 2GB $420 (OWC $420)*
12GB kit (4GBx3) $570 (OWC $550)

8GB - 4 x 2GB $280 (OWC $280)
16GB - 4 x 4GB $760 (OWC $720)
6GB - 3 x 2GB $210 (OWC $220)


One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” +Subtract $1,200+
One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” +Subtract $800+
One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere”

Memory Upgrades from Apple for single processor:

6GB (3x2GB) +Add $225+
8GB (4x2GB) +Add $375+
*12GB (3x4GB) +Add $1,275+*
16GB (4x4GB) +Add $1,775+

Memory Upgrades from Apple for dual-processor:

8GB (4X2GB) +Add $150+
*12GB (6X2GB) +Add $450+*
16GB (8x2GB) +Add $750+
24GB (6X4GB) +Add $2,550+
32GB (8x4GB) +Add $3,550+

OWC Mac Pro Mid-2010 Memory
Crucial: Apple Mac Pro Quad-Core MC250LL/A Mid 2010
Crucial: Apple Mac Pro 6-Core Mid 2010

Aug 12, 2010 6:18 AM in response to The hatter

Anandtech 27 page review is a must

AMD's Radeon HD 5870: Bringing About the Next Generation Of GPUs
by Ryan Smith - 9/23/2009
Compared to the Radeon HD 4870, the 5870 has seen some changes to the board design.

AMD has now moved to using a full sheath on their cards (including a backplate), very much like the ones that NVIDIA has been using since the 9800GTX. *The card measures 10.5” long*, an inch longer than the 4890 or the same as the 4870x2 and the NVIDIA GTX lineup.

the card has a TDP of 188W, AMD can still get away with using two 6-pin connectors.

in our benchmarks the 5870 never doubles the performance of the 4870, in spite of being nearly twice the card. Graphics processing is embarrassingly parallel, but that doesn’t mean it perfectly scales. The different may be a product of that or a product of the lack of scaling in memory bandwidth, we can’t tell.
What’s for certain however is that we don’t have any hard-capped memory bandwidth limited situations, *the 5870 always outscores the 4870 by a great deal more than 33%*.

Moving from the 4870 and it’s 900MHz base memory clock, the 5870 only jumps up by 33% to 1.2Ghz


See the article (if you haven't already, it is from a year ago!).

PS: I have some Nvidia 10.5" cards (9800GTX, GTX 260) that I used in 1,1 Mac Pro so physical characteristics and such are not an issue.

Aug 13, 2010 7:03 AM in response to The hatter

Using one card just for GPGPU/OpenCL/CUDA using ATI and Nvidia together could be one such use.

The nice thing is that OpenCL automatically uses all GPUs (and CPUs if you want)
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/apr10/043010.html#S26879


Using dual 4870s:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=665034

ePOWER EP-450CD 450W ATX12V / EPS12V Modular Power Supply
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817101044

http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/product/power/purepower/w0099/w0099.asp
http://www.thermaltake.com.au/Products/PowerSupply/W0157/Toughpower450WExpress.a spx

Cables to Go 35522 10in 6-Pin PCI Express 4-pin Molex Power Adapter Cable
http://www.amazon.com/Cables-Go-35522-Express-Adapter/dp/B000NK7ML2/

The VisionTek 450W Dedicated Graphics Power Supply's 5.25” bay size compliant power supply
The VisionTek 450W Dedicated Graphics Power Supply is designed to work with your existing power supply providing efficient Power Solution.
It gives extra power for single cards, SLI, Quad SLI, CrossFire, CrossFireX and desktop/server CPU’s.

Additionally, the VisionTek 450W Dedicated Graphics Power Supply offers synchronized “power ON” with the main power supply.

http://www.amazon.com/450W-Graphics-Power-Supply-Juice/dp/B001AO4O98/


4870 and/or GTX 285 dual GPU - and Nvidia for their GPGPU/CUDA ability has gotten VirginiaTech and the military's attention.

ATI 4870 or Nvidia GTX 285 (2009 choices)
http://www.geek.com/articles/games/macpro-whats-better-ati-radeon-4870-or-nvidia -gtx-285-20090720/

Aug 14, 2010 6:21 AM in response to The hatter

When it comes to memory, Is triple channel memory mode faster and better solution than dual channel mode?

The improved bandwidth and lower latency over DDR2 FBDIMMs means that even in dual channel mode, DDR3 is a real improvement, even when used in dual channel mode.

After all these tests you need to ask yourself: What the heck is that triple channel mode useful for anyway, when it is obvious that is doesn’t provide performance boost that is expected?
Dual vs Triple Channel Memory Mode


Conclusion Triple-Channel DDR3

One of the biggest things that everyone has been looking forward to with Core i7 was the removal of the aging and antiquated FSB, allowing the CPU to finally live up to its potential. And the integration of the memory controller onto the CPU was the biggest leap forward in performance of all. However, Intel really didn’t need to worry about a triple channel memory controller at this stage.

We have seen today that dual channel memory on the Core i7 is more than enough to keep it fed with bandwidth, especially since the CPU and memory are communicating with each other directly. There is very little lost bandwidth and it makes better use of all of the dual channel memory than the triple channel memory. However, with Intel’s plans to increase speeds and allow heavier memory usage, especially with IGP based systems, the extra bandwidth will end up being welcomed.
Memory Analysis Dual Channel


Intel Quick-Path

Configuring and Optimizing Xeon Processor (Nehalem) Systems Memory

Other World Computing probably says it best:
Nehalem Memory and Performance

MacPerformanceGuide Nehalem Memory Test

Crucial CT1431612
Q: How much memory can Apple Mac Pro 6-Core Mid 2010 Mac Pro handle?
A: Maximum Memory: 32768MB

Aug 18, 2010 2:40 AM in response to The hatter

There is/was a tech note warning about an issue with Oxford chipset and affecting those quad-interface cases. (Not that there haven't been issues with these before, but that was when they were used connected to a PCI Express SATA controller).

From Hardmac:
Apple TechNote
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3449
the new Mac Pro 2010 compatibility with some Oxford OXUF934DSB usually found in quad interface enclosures (eSATA/USB/Firewire 400/8000).

According to Apple, such drives would randomly refuse to automatically mount when booting the Mac Pro Apple. To fix the problem, you will need to wait for couple of second after booting the Mac Pro before turning the external HD on. A solution will most probably be found soon, either via a firmware update of the controller, or a driver update.

Apple Tech Notes Recent Changes:
http://support.apple.com/kb/index?page=articles

Aug 20, 2010 2:42 AM in response to The hatter

OWC and MacPerformanceGuide :
*OWC has confirmed that the 8GB modules do work in the 4/6-core 2010 Mac Pro*
According to OWC, using 3 modules shows a ~ *15% memory bandwidth gain* over 4 modules, so the configurations with a * at right ar the optimal ones. Whether real-world tasks are affected by this small difference remains to be tested, but in past testing I never measured more then 3% hit from using 4 modules instead of 3.

Mid-2010 Mac Pro DDR3 Memory @ OWC


Intel must have improved the design of Westmere memory controller most likely.
Xeon 5600 Westmere-EP

Aug 20, 2010 11:19 AM in response to The hatter

OWC Blog their recent test: > we have confirmed that the new Mac Pro 2010 models do address dual- and triple-channel memory addressing.

Similar to dual-channel interleaving in previous models, installing memory in matched sets of three will allow the Mac to distribute memory functions across the modules in that set, allowing faster access to that information. In triple-channel mode, *you can see up to 15%* more memory bandwidth over dual-channel addressing.
(However) few applications took advantage of (triple channel) and *most apps didn’t show any real-world advantage over dual-channel setups* (when Early 2009 Mac Pro came out).


Memory Tester:
http://diglloydtools.com/memorytester.html
MacSales Memory Benchmark "Early 2008"
Regarding the Early 2009 Mac Pro:
*SIX is better than EIGHT:* We have confirmed through talking with engineers and through testing, that 6 sticks in the 8-core system provide *maximum triple channel memory performance*. (NOTE: *4-core systems are have slower memory throughput* even if you use 3 sticks. +We measured a 72% drop in throughput with our memory benchmarks versus the 8-core.+ That's one of the _"unadvertised consequences"_ of choosing the 4-core over the 8-core.)
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html


With three channels of DDR3-1066, you're looking at 25.6GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Lopping off a memory channel drops bandwidth by a further 4GB/s, which doesn't bode well for our dual-channel config. However, it is worth noting that our dual-channel config delivers three quarters the memory bandwidth of a triple-channel setup with just two thirds the number of channels... *dual-channel access latencies are quite a bit lower* (a nanosecond is a relative eternity in the GHz world of the modern PC) than those of our triple-channel equivalent. There might yet be hope for our dual-channel config.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15967

Aug 20, 2010 3:49 PM in response to The hatter

Mid 2010 Specs: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP589
http://www.apple.com/support/macpro/

*Minimum build OS:*
Mac Pro (Mid 2010) Aug 2010 10.6.4 - 10F2251
Mac Pro with Mac OS X Server (Mid 2010) Aug 2010 10.6.4 - 10F2252 (Server)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1159

In Xserve and some Mac Pro configurations where the Mac OS X Server operating system is installed on an SSD drive and data for services is housed on internal drives, an internal RAID, or an external RAID, some services may not start up properly or may not be able to find the associated data during the startup process.
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3286

*Mac OS X Server 10.6.4 Update for Mac Pro (Mid 2010)*
The 10.6.4 update is recommended for all servers currently running Snow Leopard Server version 10 .6.3. It includes Wiki Server Update 1.0, Safari 5 and general operating system fixes that enhance the stability, compatibility and security of your server, as well as specific fixes for:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1082

Mac Pro (Mid 2010) - Technical Specifications
Logic Express Mac OS X Server v10.6 (Unlimited-client license) Apple Remote Desktop
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP589

Mac Pro Mid 2010 Server Update:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1082
http://support.apple.com/downloads/

Mac Pro (Mid 2010) - User Guide
http://manuals.info.apple.com/enUS/Mac_Pro_Mid2010_UG5686.pdf

Aug 21, 2010 8:50 AM in response to The hatter

There are some Geekbench scores out for MacPro5,1
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=MacPro5%2C1

Top Results http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top

*Mac Pro Mid-2010 Westmere X5650 12-core 2.66GHz:*

Score: 23099
MacPro5,1 2.66 12-core
Processor Intel Xeon X5650
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2
Processor Frequency 2.66 GHz Processors 2
Apple Inc. MP51.88Z.007F.B00.1008031144
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280995

*Mac Pro Westmere 3.33GHz 6-core Xeon W3680*

Score: 16141
Integer 14789
Floating Point 25796
Memory 5750
Stream memory bandwidth 7870

System Information
Operating System Mac OS X 10.6.4 (*Build 10F2521*)
Model MacPro5,1
Motherboard Apple Inc. Mac-F221BEC8
Processor Intel *Xeon W3680*
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2
Processor Frequency *3.33 GHz* Processors 1
Cores 6 Threads 12
Memory 12.0 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 FSB 6.40 GHz
BIOS Apple Inc. MP51.88Z.007F.B00. 1008031144
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280941

*Early Mac Pro 2009 4,1 3.2 8-core:*

Score: 19992
MacPro4,1 3.32GHz Cores 8
Processor Intel Xeon W5590
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5
Processor Frequency 3.32 GHz Processors 2
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280121

Aug 23, 2010 8:31 AM in response to The hatter

Go check Barefeats early/prelim tests with Cinebench and Geekbench scores.


Thirdly, note that last year's 8-core Nehalem 2.93 beats this year's 6-core and 8-core Mac Pro.

Only the 12-core models are faster running Cinebench and Geekbench. So if you have a 2009 8-core, you may want to hang onto it and upgrade the graphics card with a Radeon HD 5770 or 5870 kit.

http://www.barefeats.com/wst10.html

Aug 23, 2010 8:43 AM in response to The hatter

Been watching the Geekbench results for the last couple of days and must admit I am baffled. Besides the performance enhancement of 64-bit versus 32-bit, the scores for any particular CPU are all over the place. Some of the E5620s are below 10,000. It seems that the W3680 is out performing the E5620s which has more cores.

Any ideas why the variation is so dramatic?

Aug 26, 2010 2:54 AM in response to The hatter

It depends on your work load and what you are doing.

When I bought my 16GB (I could go to 12GB for triple mode), I decided that more RAM was what I needed, not necessarily the speed at which it ran. I wanted to run VM's and decided that more RAM is what I needed. I was already moving from a Pentium D, so the architecture and memory bandwidth was off the scale compared to that CPU.

Another rule of thumb: If your CPU bound, double is fine. If your memory bound, triple will provide you with a bit more edge. Again, it really depends on your work load.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Mac Pro Mid-2010 Westmere

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.